User talk:MastahCheef117/M7A1 Sherman All-Purpose Tank
You don't know anything about tanks, do you? Look at yourself, you've taken a World War 2 design which was known as the flipping Ronson, you know why? It brewed up almost every time it was hit by a decent caliber anti-tank weapon. Thats right, you chose the WWII tank which suceeded thanks to it's numbers and ease of production, not any specific merit of it's design or anything. You know whats also funny? You haven't even upgraded it well. Your upgrades may have made some differece in Italy of Normandy during the 1940s, but they will not do shit against a modern army, let alone the UNSC. You gave it what? 34mms more armour? Big bloody deal. Thats not going to protect it from a 17 Pounder AT gun used by the British in late WWII, let alone a modern 66mm LAW. The Sherman was known for being easy to kill, and this just makes it harder for a Panzer IV to break through it. Is it going to stop a single M19 Jackhammer from blasting through it? No. It certainly will not stop even a single shot by the Scorpion's 90mm gun, the 76mm 17 Pounder used by the British Military could punch through Tigers with this much armour easy as pie, nothing stopping the 90mm of the Scorpion from doing so, is there? With the quite frankly pathetic design flaws of the original Sherman and armour dealt with, what do we have? We have an armament which is rather underpowered considering the size of the tank, when the Scorpion could fit a 90mm gun and at least 1 7.62 MG, this hulking piece of metal can fit 3 .50s and a 105mm, you call that an armament? Do you not forget that the Sherman is a bigger target than the Scorpion? When you raise it's profile, you put on decent weaponry and armour to make it worth it, not the rubbish you slapped on after finding a copy of 'Janes WWII Tanks'. Then when we look at the guns themselves, we find what? A snubby little Howitzer placed on an 'All-Purpose Tank', like thats going to be good for the average Tank Vs Tank combat you get. It is a HOWITZER, not your average GUN, Howitzers are designed for fire which goes beyond line of sight, goes over obsticles and comes down from above like we want artillery too. Do you fight tanks like that? No, you just find your rounds slamming into bare earth while they plant flat trajectory 90mm tungsten rounds into your underarmed, underarmoured and poorly designed arse. And theres also your beloved .50 machine guns, what are you on? A diet of warfilms stretching across the Second World War which are designed to show the propoganda machine of the victorious allies in full motion? Is there some variant of Future Weapons which pleases itself to the sight of Hardcore All American Gun Porn or something? You seem to forget that the Halo universe already has a plentiful supply of .50 and above weaponry, even Halo 3s bloody minigun is a 12.7mm weapon, why not use that rather than bringing back an old design? Look at the kill count you provide, you're saying that with less than a thousand rounds in total a single one of these can kill over five hundred infantry and a pair of APCs using only machine guns alone? Thats more bullshit than a field full of living steaks on EX-Lax. Your kill count requires a one shot one kill radio, and the APCs being killed with less than 50 rounds each, are you mad? Are the APCs made out of paper? Was the tank firing on unarmed targets within a narrow canyon? I have barely scratched the surface of this, but I think this should be enough of a start, I haven't even gotten onto the turret turn speed which would throw the gunner around like a cat in a washing machine, and be a bitch to actually aim properly. Give this tank a good look over, then scrap it. Useful Dave 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed it. Happy? Now calm down. Also, the M12IDF isn't an APC, it's basically a stripped down version of a bigger Sparrowhawk that is a transport. STRIPPED DOWN. Meaning it's armor sucks.MastahCheef117 02:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Also, if you think this is bad, you need to see a couple other articles, which make NO sense at all, and are even worse than this. And I know if I say their name you're gonna blast me or something. So go ahead. Find them. And a .50 cal cartridge is 13mm, meaning that's a lot better than just one little 7.62mm, nevermind there's three of them.MastahCheef117 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Canon Friendliness Blast...someone beat me to the rant. But hey, there's still time for more. So let's start with build and armor. The tank is twenty one feet long, nine feet wide, and ten feet tall. That's about a foot larger in each direction from the original Sherman build. It's also got armor twice as thick, from 62mm to 120mm. So while it is slightly larger, inside, it is only slightly so, as it loses about a fourth of the gain to armor. However, with armor being twice as thick, and being made of heavier material, just comparing hulls, this thing should weigh easily twice of a normal Sherman. It falls just short, 116k lbs to 66.8lbs, about a 70% gain. So it is quite a bit underweight, not counting increases to the engine and weapons. Onward to weapons. The original Sherman sported one of the worst turrets of mainstream tanks during WW2. A Sherman's stubby 75mm gun could barely pierce Tiger armor at 30 meters, while the Tiger's larger 88mm gun could take out a Sherman easily from 500 meters. To rectify this, the Allies designed the Firefly, a Sherman with the British 17 pounder. The Firefly rarely saw combat or production, though, because the US was uneasy with putting a British gun on their all American tank. Now, they ran into a problem initially trying to fit the 17 pounder onto the tank. The turret was too big. They managed to get around this by rearranging certain parts of the 17 pounder, but anything bigger would basically not fit. So your 120mm turret? Well, you're going to need to explain some pretty amazing feats of engineering for it to fit into the tiny turret compartment mounted on the Sherman, since yours isn't even noticeably larger. Furthermore, the gun would add to the weight, so let's just assume, for ease, that the gun also weighs twice what the Sherman's M3 L/40 did. Now, onto engines. How exactly does making mud hot prevent it from drying on the engine and causing malfunction? Mud dries as it becomes hot, not vice versa, so making it "incredibly warm" would not solve the issue of mud. And since engines generally tend to be hot, being warm wouldn't help engineers find it, either. Also, you might note that tanks aren't exactly roomy, so the bit where a crew member "runs" to the engine to activate the heater seems...unrealistic. This isn't an aircraft, so chances are, none of the crew will be moving at all. Finally, the subject of canon friendliness. All that ranting aside, you clearly state that the tank is introduced Post Covenant War, in 2556, yet you give examples of the tank's use during battles that take place against the Covenant, against Elites no less, in early 2552. I'd also like to note that an AMR is not an effective anti-aircraft weapon, and that the M19-B SAM personal launcher is probably a good weapon to note in the area of anti-aircraft. And I'd like to know just how much ammunition this thing is lugging around, if a single one can kill 600 marines and two small aircraft with just its three machine guns. Canon-wise, you have some easy fixes ahead, namely figuring out when your tank was introduced and what it was fielded against. You may also want to try a weight more around 140 lbs, since the tank should be easily double the weight of its namesake. But concept-wise, you have a long road ahead of you. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 06:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I love it when i can take a day off from rants :D Though Rot, might I add, the Brits were the ones to lash the 17 pounder to a Sherman and they did very well with it, the firefly became a tiger hunter Xd But onwards and upwards, with what some of my other comrades in arms missed was *With the 120mm gun, all shells, bullets, whutever chemical launched weapon, fall from gravity, however with tanks it would be at least a 1000 before the shell began to drop, and even then, tank crews do this magical witchcraft stuff where they rearrange the turret so it aims above the target, thus compensating for the drop. With this 'smaller but just as powerful shell', it wouldn't be as powerful, not by a longshot. Shells are propelled by a propellant, small shell means smaller amounts of propellant, affecting the range, 'accuracy' (which is actually just 'bullet drop', which has nothing to do with accuracy) and hitting power of the shell, but a small shell also means lower amount of explosives in the shell or small and weaker kinetic penetrator, or both depending on the shell. And a small cannon wouldn't let it's shell 'cut through the air more precisely', you want to make your gun more accuracy, you increase the length of the barrel and the number and quality of the twists, if it is rifled. Rifled guns are sorta.... substandard... for these jobs though, its why everyone uses smoothbore these days. *With the M2, that gun is outdated by modern standards. I highly doubt its going to be used in twenty years, never mind 500. Also, as with Rot, mananging to get all those troops with those three guns would require the three gunners to be Chuck Norris, Mr. T and myself, which is a impossibility since I vowed to kill Chuck Norris when we next meet. Long story short, M2s aren't amazingly accuracte with repeat fire, and if its facing 500 troops, one of them would of just shot the gunner or shot the tank with a anti tank weapon. They aren't all going to stand in the open with targets and go 'Oh Hai thar guis'. *Engine: If it freezes at that temperture, I assume it has no kind of radiators, cos even world war two tanks would operate in those conditions, or at least the half decent ones :P. Also, how would the engine break just cos of a little muddy stain? Engines are tough, robust things, mud isn't going to stop them. Also, cold air generators, thats just a AC, which are big, clunky and noisy. Wouldn't it make so much more sense for it to just be like a normal engine and have small, useful, replaceable coolant liquid? Alos, it sounds a klaxon in cold weather? Thats.... really... just... not bright. Its like sneaking through the woods on a recon mission with a loud speaker saying 'HERE WE ARE, COME GET SOME!'. *Electricity: An electric 'jumper motor' would actually, lessen acceleration and slow the engine down. Electric motors are large, weak and have generally poor performance. Besides, it would require a EXTRA motor and I'd have no clue where you'd fit that. *Roles: Its about 40-30 tons too heavy to even cosider being a scout tank, it's won't have nearly enough power to weight ratio to be a heavy hauler and it won't have any cargo space for said heavy transporting. *Smoke Canisters: Smoke Canisters aren't navigation systems... *infantrycarriage? What, a towed carraige? As thaqts going to slow its speed, screw its agility and make it a bigger target, not a bright idea for a tank. *Sister tank: Since I can't be bothered post rants I have about them on thier pages, here they are. ::Rofl Cannon: no gun is 'armour piercing', only the ammo is, and guns aren't 'laser targetted', your getting guns confused with missiles :S ::Purpose: About twenty tons to light and too weakly armed and armoured to pass as a heavy tank, not a transport or hauler for same reasons as its sister tank and due to lack of any apparent command gear, at all I doubt it would fare well as a command tank (your gonna need TOC systems, expanded radio, a commanderthough i suspect i may be seeing something very similar to my Scorpion Command real soon... ) Oh, and one highly, annoying thing. UNSC Ground vehicles are named after ground based animals, for example, scoprion, warthog, elepant, mongoose, wolverine, cobra, etc. Much in the same way spartans are named 'Name-XXX' and so on and so forth. No arguements >:/ * Fine. If no one likes it do whatever the hell you want to do with it. Call me gay, retarded, or an all-out idiot, I don't give a damn. Delete it even if you want. MastahCheef117 22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC) What's odd about your response is that, while we've heavily criticized the design, only Dave attacked you as a person, and he was out of line to do so. You're design needs a lot of work, and if we never point out the mistakes, you'll never get better at writing. Oh, and Ajax, I know the Firefly was of British design. But the Sherman was of American design, and the Americans were edgy about putting a British gun on their tank, which is why the Firefly was so uncommon. :--'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Vote to Move to User Namespace For #'Master Gunnery Sergeant Hank J Wimbleton IVCOM' - There are paragraphs devoted to the errors of this article, yet the author's only response is to give up in frustration because a single person insulted him personally. #'//Out of the Darkness// //Into the Light// ' 21:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) #' ' #' ' #'//Out of the Darkness// //Into the Light// ' 22:50, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Against